Discussion:Hello-CPA's Question
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Hello-CPA's Question
| 11 September 2007 | |
| Hello-cpa asked: "The instructions for form W-2 say SE health insurance premiums *may* be included in box 14 (for informational purposes).
Do you think this means they should be included for a 2% SH if he is going to deduct them on his 1040, line 29 (SE HI deduction)? In other words, are those two item automatically matched? In other words, would it be advisable to amend the W-2 just for box 14, before filing the 1040? Has anybody filed a lot of S-corp return and can testify that they are not automatically matched?" | |
| 11 September 2007 | |
| I don't think they are matched. Amended W-2 is not required. | |
| 11 September 2007 | |
| When I do an 1120S for a shareholder who did not have his health insurance reported on his W-2, I just add a statement on the K-1 stating the amount that should be picked up as income. No need to amend the W-2. | |
Michaelstar (talk|edits) said: | 13 December 2007 |
| Do you have a link to the wire? | |
| 2007-12-13 | |
| IRS wire Sec 162 - ruling of deductibility of 2% shareholder-employee health insurance to appear Jan. 14. | |
| 13 December 2007 | |
| I don't believe that Box 14 information is matched - as it's a user field that is of no consequence to IRS (for W-2 reporting purposes).
However, on all my S Corp shareholders where this does apply, I do prepare that information in box 14, as a reminder FOR ME, when I prepare the shareholder's 1040. | |
| 13 December 2007 | |
| I wonder how many of the people frightened by last year's headliner are going to file amended returns? ♫ | |
| December 13, 2007 | |
| I think that notice answers about 95% of the questions that have been posted here about owner/employee health insurance. | |
Michaelstar (talk|edits) said: | 14 December 2007 |
| Dennis - I would guess that anyone who can fit their circumstances into the shoe as outlined in this notice would be just plain lazy if they did not go back and amend their returns if it proved to be economically justified. It might require also amending W-2's and 1120-s t/r's as well as the 1040 so one would need to look at the entire situation before looking back so to speak.
One thing to be sure - 2007 is still a very open year as the clock has yet to strike 12, so time is of the essence before 2007 turns into a pumpkin. | |
| 14 December 2007 | |
| But you have to explain to client why you gave him bad advice for 2006. ♫
All the notice does is put us back to where we were before the headliner, which was resoundingly trashed here and elsewhere. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 14 December 2007 |
| That sound you just heard was JR gloating.
Why can't everything be this simple, even if it is two years late? | |
